Books By

Theory Of Existence


The foundation of the novel, Apocalypse Disrupted: time shift strategy, by Timothy Freriks. Book One of the Robert Curry political thriller series

Excerpt from Apocalypse Disrupted


Professor Robert Curry stepped out from the stage curtain and into the glare of the lights. Barely six feet tall, the middle-aged man was handsome in an academic sort of way: part rugged, part nerd. He pushed back a lock of his full, still-dark hair as he settled behind the podium and stared at the audience sitting in the darkened auditorium. His hair had its own mind, it seemed, falling recklessly down onto his forehead at inconvenient times, like when he was nervous—like now. It was quiet in the room, expectant, mainly because the audience had no idea why he was in front of them.

“Thank you, Dr. Dominion, ladies and gentlemen. I’m here to tell you about my theories on a rather large topic: what existence actually is.”

There were a few light snickers, which he ignored. He understood. He was, after all, a political science professor with a well-developed sense of humor and he was sure that some thought he might be kidding.

“I have waited until now to present my thoughts because there has been a piece missing: proof, to be exact, of the basic premise that supports the entire theory. I am happy to share with you that we now have what I do consider proof. Two months ago, scientists at the CERN atomic Hadron Collider in Europe finally observed the existence of a subatomic particle they named the Higgs Boson, but what many, including myself, call the ‘God’ particle. It had been hypothesized for many years based on little more than the fact that it must be there. Scientists now know that it does exist, but they don’t know why it exists.

“However,” he paused. “I believe I do.” Curry looked around the room. The crowd was growing attentive.

“The basic premise of my thesis is that all things are tangible. That may sound elementary, but what if you consider the things that are NOT considered tangible? It becomes a bold hypothesis. For example, love. Is love tangible? Anger? Are emotions tangible, or intangible? Take faith, even the faith that the house you live in actually exists right now even though you can’t see it.

“I believe all those things—our soul, our life, our emotions, our sense of being—are contained in a physical particle of matter in our brain chemistry and that all things human are driven by this particle. That, I believe, is what the ‘God’ particle actually is.”

It was now very quiet in the room.

“In my mind, this led to a very compelling notion: if you believe that all current matter—you, me, this table, the planet—always existed, and if you believe that the universe began with the Big Bang theory, then it follows that all matter was at one time a homogeneous ball of matter. That matter one day decided to explode and eventually become galaxies, then planets and…us.”

He paused for impact before continuing. “Here’s the thought: If the God particle is present in our brain chemistry today, it must have been present in the original ball of matter. And vice versa.”

He waited once more, looking around the room for reactions. Heads were nodding. “I’m suggesting that if I’m right, the original ball of matter was an individual entity, or more likely, a number of individual functioning entities composed of not only intelligence but also emotions. The original matter had, in short, human qualities. It was like us.

“Or are we like it? We have to be, since we came from it, or them. It follows then that the original matter must have been capable of compassion, greed, creative thoughts, anger, frustration, boredom, ambition, and competition. Again, I ask: Where else could our human characteristics have come from?

“So, I lay before you this thesis: that our intelligence and our sense of being ‘human’ are derived from the fact that we each possess an infinitesimally small remnant of the original matter, the original community. I have called this race of beings… the ‘Master Entity’.”

His audience was fully engaged now. “Is it possible that members of this Master Entity race, since matter is never destroyed, are still intact and functioning? Since we are, each of us, part of its distributed, yet still collective intelligence, isn’t it entirely logical that the Master Entities are still thinking? Still evolving their—our— existence?

Professor Curry took a deep breath as he approached his final premise. There was now dead silence in the room; he wasn’t sure if it was attention or politeness, rapture or courtesy. “Therefore,” he continued, “the next logical step would be to hypothesize that the Master Entity, the collective intelligence, is what humans have for eons called God. I believe that the Master Entity, therefore, exists and is still actively managing our existence.”


Author’s Academic Authority

I have no “Academic Authority”, just a pretty cool idea based on what I do know. First, yes, I know that in my novel, Apocalypse Disrupted: time shift strategy, the timing of the discovery of the Higgs particle is not right—but, hey, I’m an author; I’m allowed to make it up as I go along. But what I haven’t made up is the fact that it took forty years and billions of dollars to determine that there really is a Higgs Boson particle, a particle that exists in the universe but has no known purpose. In ‘reality’, it decays rapidly, turning into another, more stable, particle. Like every particle of matter, it is never destroyed; it just changes.

It was first suspected to exist in the 1960s and was actually found by scientists at the CERN Large Hadron Collider in 2012. In early 2013, it was determined that the new particle behaved, interacted, and decayed exactly as predicted by the “Standard Model”. It has mass. Therefore it has properties. It is the question of the purpose of those properties that bought Robert Curry to his theory.  Now that I’ve exhausted my knowledge of quantum and particle physics, I now present Robert Curry’s theory in its entirety.


A Theory of Existence—Soul, Intelligence, Life

By Robert Curry, professor, Woodbridge College, Woodbridge, VA


The Foundation

First, I am assuming that the Higgs Boson is, or converts to, an actual, stable particle of matter, complete with properties and purpose. We know nothing of its properties or purpose. But, like the good scientist I am definitely not, I have to believe there is a purpose; things that exist do so for a reason. Don’t they?  So, by the process of elimination, I come to this conclusion: all other particles of matter make tangible things exist, wouldn’t it follow that particles also make the intangible things exist?

If tangible things—these are the things you can touch and see and feel—exist and are ‘real’, then don’t a lot of intangible things exist and don’t they feel ‘real’? Love is just as real to most people as the chair they sit in. Hate is very real; fear, jealousy, anger, and all other emotions can be just as real—you have them, they exist, they’re real. And everybody has them.

If you believe that all the particles that comprise all the tangible things in the universe that exist now, in fact, existed when the universe was a really, really dense ball of matter, then you have to believe that ALL particles existed at the source of the Big Bang. ‘All particles’ must include the tangible and the intangible particles.

Somewhere, people got the feeling of ‘soul’, that feeling you have when you look out of your eyes and see the rest of the world. You are unique; you exist; you have both tangible existence (your body) and an intangible existence (what happens in your brain, your mind). Somewhere, people got the ability not only to feel alive, but to love, hate, feel anger and jealously, express creativity and pride, the need for community, and all the other non-physical parts of life. Those properties are just as real as your fingernail or your nose.

Those properties must have been passed from the original ball of matter just as were the properties of DNA and genomes. My feeling is that those intangible properties are contained in the Higgs Boson and the particle it becomes upon decay.

I like to call this particle the SIL Particle since it contains the properties of Soul, Intelligence, and Life.


The Original Ball of Matter (OBM)

Assuming all of the particles, tangible and intangible, that make up the world—both physical and non-physical—were present in the OBM, then it would follow that the OBM had both physical and non-physical properties. The transformation of the physical properties from the OBM to the world we see around us is not difficult to imagine; all the original particles just rearrange themselves to form the earth, tables, cars, and your body. But the SIL particle is the far more interesting.

If the SIL particle is the depository for all the intangible properties that make humans, human, then it follows that the OBM indeed possessed all of the same intangibles that we do. We have to ask the critical question again: where did those intangibles come from? If we love, didn’t the OBM love; if we get angry, didn’t the OBM get angry…and so on.

If the OBM indeed had in its composition SIL particles, then it can be logically concluded that OBM was intelligent and experienced the feeling of “life”. I call this Intelligent Being the Master Entity.


Human Characteristics and Communities

The biggest question, therefore, is this: is there a single Master Entity or is there a community of Master Entities?

To ask that, one has to look at the Master Entity’s creation: us. Two of the more fascinating characteristics of man are competition and community. Amongst all the emotions and tendencies and preferences and instincts lies the need to communicate. In humans, the need to communicate leads to communities. The heart of competition is Community; without communities, there would be no competition: you can’t satisfactorily compete with yourself. To have competition, you need a goal, otherwise, how would you win? If a person has a goal, it means he has the desire to achieve, to be better than another player. This comes from self-awareness, the fundamental wanting to prove to others that you can beat them, that you’re better than them. Winning is an expression of self-interest: what you do to make yourself feel better about yourself.

If we have those tendencies, the Master Entities must have had them. Therefore, one should conclude that there must have been communities for the simple fact that one can’t engage in most of the human endeavors—which are driven by emotions—by yourself. You have to have another person to love, to be angry at, to be better than, and so on.


Competition and Creativity

So, I conclude that the OBM consisted of a community of intelligent beings, all competing, loving, hating, and trying to be entertained.

For beings with a high level of intelligence, competition can be a source of creative pursuit. Expressing one’s creativity is one of the oldest positive occupations. Creating art and building things are the truest and most powerful endeavors. “Competition” requires a game; games require rules; rules must be created. Making up a game takes a high degree of creative energy, especially if there are no existing games to draw from. It would be an attractive challenge.

Boredom is an emotion that I haven’t mentioned, yet, but it is powerful. The more intelligent the being, the more apt he is to get bored easily. How better a way to battle boredom than to create and play a game?

I contend that this is exactly what happened to the communities of Master Entities that comprised the OBM. They got bored and had to create something, a game in which they could compete.


The Goal of the Game

If the vision of a supreme being getting bored bothers you, consider again the fact that everything we are—tangible or intangible—must have existed in the Original Ball of Matter. That must include emotions and all the characteristics that humans possess and/or display—competition is a big one. But competition requires a goal, and one would think that since the Master Entities are the quintessential intelligent beings, the goals, and the rules would be quite lofty.

I believe the game they invented to occupy their time was to create civilizations, to engineer an eco-system that supports all of the structures that support human life: the food, the water, the air, assuming those things are part of the Master Entity’s design. The biggest challenge might be to invent the beings that exist within the eco-structure. Think about it: how incredible an intellectual pursuit would that be? Would there be any loftier challenge than that? To be free to develop the foundation of a civilization; to invent life and the world in which it is born and flourishes; to architect the mechanics of a world that never existed before—seriously, how cool would that be?

Therefore, I believe the goal was for each player to create a civilization; the best one wins. Games have goals and goals have to be achieved, which begs the question: what is the measure of a winning player? Where’s the goal line? Does the winning civilization have to reach a certain point in development? It would be logical to assume that the highest level of civilization would be one in which everyone lives equally and freely, where every member is happy and content. Using the word “lofty” again: what loftier goal of a society is greater than that?

Certainly, the pattern of the human condition has been increasingly more “civilized”, from the earliest man where brutality and savagery was a common thread. The level of wide-spread savagery has lessened over the years, so, therefore, it seems like the trend would be toward that goal. I realize at this moment in time it might seem that we are far away from that state of society, but I think that only suggests that the game is far from over.



One might think that “supreme” beings had, themselves, grown out of raw and brutal emotions like killing and destroying things. That thought leads to the question of evolution, both in the life-span of the Master Entities, but also in the development of the civilization each Master Entity is trying to develop.

Thinking about evolution in the case of the Master Entities is, simply, beyond the ability of my brain to handle. It would require a “look-back” to the Master Entity’s own beginnings; and what could that possibly be: where did it come from? What was it like? What made it evolve?

One conclusion might be that, since circularity seems to be universal, perhaps the Master Entity’s beginning was our ending. Is that the goal—to develop a civilization whose members become pure matter and energy? Maybe the objective is to get life forms to evolve to the point where they once again become a new collective OBM—and it starts all over. The first Master Entity to achieve that goal wins. Maybe?

Okay, this just boggles my mind, so I’ll move on to evolution of the planet and all the things that have ever occupied it. I see the development of this amazing planet as a design process. I took a few classes in the Engineering program at Woodbridge and learned that you start with nothing but criteria—understanding of what the final product has to do—and start with generalities, tweaking every element until, eventually, you end up with a design where all the parts of the machine work together flawlessly. I believe evolution is tweaking. It is a process of getting an idea, building it, testing it, revising it, solving interaction issues with other elements, testing it again, and so on. Eventually, you’ll get it right. Or not. The goal is still the same, however: making a successful product.

If you think about macro-things, like the dying out of entire species of animals and plants, and micro-things, like why the human appendix became smaller and smaller as the quality of the food ingested became healthier and healthier, you have to see how evolution can be an intelligence-driven process. Seriously, these things cannot just happen by themselves.

The Master Entity could well be called the Grand Engineer. Or maybe we just call it Nature. Or God.

To create a perfect society, human behavior must be influenced. The best way to do that might be for the Master Entity to be able to get inside individual human’s heads—literally.


Human Life – SIL particles

I am assuming that each human has a quantity of SIL particles in their brain that gives them the feeling of Soul, of Intelligence, and of Life. The question that follows is: how does the brain acquire them?

My answer is quite simple, actually. When the brain chemistry of a fetus reaches a certain point, it attracts its quota of SIL particles, which are integrated into the brain, turning bio-matter into a mind.

So, where do they come from, these SIL particles that get absorbed by a new human’s brain? Here comes one cornerstone of the entire theory: the SIL Reservoir.

The SIL Reservoir is a blanket of invisible SIL particles that surround the Earth. When a fetus attracts its SIL particles, they come from the reservoir. This brings up many questions, the first one being: how are they selected?

Each person has a slightly different brain chemistry, generated in part by the genetics of the parents. Each new human attracts SIL particles that are compatible with the new human’s chemistry. For example, if musical ability “runs in the family”, a new human is more likely to attract a SIL particle with greater musical properties. Extend this thought to any of the thousands of abilities humans display, from math to artistry to any extraordinary ability, and you’ll see why children tend to have characteristics similar to their parents.

But we all know that millions of children have abilities that their parents do not. How many great musicians came from parents with no musical abilities? How many great artists came from parents with no artistic abilities? And how many really dull children come from exceptional parents?

The answer to that question lies in another simple statement: new humans could have absorbed a SIL particle from another person, a talented person who died. What? Hold on a minute: think about it: if fresh brain chemistry can attract SIL particles, wouldn’t it follow that a brain that ceases to have any chemistry at all would release them? Where are they released to is the next question, which you have probably already answered: to the SIL Reservoir.


Human Life – Circularity

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. That leads to the question about what happens to SIL particles when a life ends. Do they terminate? No, not if you believe the first sentence of this paragraph. Then, again, what happens? Returning SIL particles to the Reservoir is truly the only logical answer.

There are a few other things that help shape my thoughts on this. First: spiritual familiarity. Have you ever met a person and had the overpowering feeling that you’ve met them before? Or what about “love at first sight”, as I experienced when I first met my wife, Kathy. Or what about people who have memories of a previous life?

Here’s what I think about all of those questions: when a new human attracts its SIL particles, they may be “used”. One of the SIL particles may have been released by someone who died long ago, someone that was known to a person that released another SIL particle that a different new human absorbed. At some point in time, one person may find someone who also has absorbed a SIL particle from the same person, or a person that person loved. Wow, I had to read those last sentences a couple of times; maybe you should, also.

Two people could theoretically absorb SIL particles from the same person, so when they meet, instant familiarity is realized. Have you experienced the common feeling that you have been some place before?  Perhaps you are certain that you knew someone you just met from somewhere? It is entirely possible that you have been there or met that person in a previous life, and those memories are imprinted on a SIL particle. That might also explain that overpowering feeling that many people have that they lived a previous life. Fragments of memories could very well be etched into SIL particles.


Wrapping it up

If the OBM consisted of a community of Master Entities who are now engaged in a civilization-building game—a cosmic version of SimCity—then one would have to assume that each Entity had a different part of the universe to work with. Perhaps each galaxy is the domain of each Master Entity.  What is clear to me is that we—the co-tenants of the property called Earth—are under the influence of, and in the domain of, one particular Master Entity.

Every game has rules. Common in most multi-player games is the element of battle strategy, where one Master Entity can make moves that block the progress of another Master Entity. Every player must use his wits to “outsmart” the other, making offensive and defensive moves. Therefore, the other Master Entities must have been allowed some influence in another Master Entity’s domain—they must have the capability to influence or interrupt the competitor’s design process. To do that, they must have a game piece.

A game piece is a device that can cause things to happen, either offensively or defensively. The only logical game piece is a selected human. I think it is one of the rules of the game that the Master Entity cannot influence any specific set of events in their domain without using their game piece. An opposing Master Entity, it follows, can only do the same thing: use a selected human to influence events to carry out a certain strategy.

I only hope that someday I’ll be able to prove this theory.

One Response to Theory Of Existence

  • Hello. Timothy. I finished “Renaissance” (and enjoyed it immensely) and have read Robert Curry’s (your?) Theory of Existence. I am appending my “theory” below. I cannot resist adding the Einstein quote: “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” Smile. Roger


    [Preliminary comments. What one believes can be based on faith or it can be based on reason. My beliefs are based on reason. My entire professional life (as a research physicist and as a physics professor) was based on reason and on making use of reason to try to establish “facts” and to attempt to “explain” how those facts came about and are related. In the area of religion particularly, it is my view that belief is basically based (smile) on faith. My beliefs (and disbeliefs) vis-a-vis religion are based on reason. Read on.]

    I accept at this time that the “Big Bang” started things off. (I am not aware of a better theory.) BUT, what about before it? I don’t know. I cannot conceive of something happening with no cause (or from a singularity, for that matter), Where does “God” come in? Only in this way: I associate the concept of God with everything that is in existence. (I steer clear of saying that God “created” everything. I don’t like the word “created.” It smacks of anthropomorphism: it is unacceptably self-referential.) The theologian Paul Tillich expressed a similar thought when he wrote that God is the “Ground of Being” (but not “a” Being). Beyond that, I am unwilling/unable to say anything further about the nature of God: the concept of God is a mystery (to me).

    One of my favorite questions: What is the purpose of life? My answer: to “glorify God.” But what does “God” mean, and what does it mean to “glorify God”? For the former, see the preceding paragraph. For the latter, I feel that it means proclaiming, and exulting in, the wonders and beauties of existence, both in its animate and inanimate forms, AND in trying to preserve and promote the well-being of that existence, particularly of humans – encouraging, promoting and facilitating peace and good-will among them (along with their health and “happiness”).

    I believe in evolution. I find it amazing, and fascinating, that humankind appears to have arisen via a series of transformations from the lowest forms of life. I think that Darwin’s phrase “survival of the fittest” is accurately descriptive of how things came about. It was “dog eat dog.” Survival as an end justified any means to that end. I wonder if that primitive self-concern which was so essential to survival in earliest times was/is not the basis of much of human behavior today, resulting in the infliction of pain and suffering by human beings on one another. This, rather than “Evil,”or “Original Sin,” is, I think, the source of many human shortcomings.

    Contrary to believing that humans are tainted with “Original Sin,” I feel a sense of pride in humans’ accomplishments to date. Please don’t misunderstand me: although humans give evidence of improving in “getting along,” they still have a long way to go in surmounting and controlling those primitive, self-concerned survival drives. I am hopeful, and optimistic. I think that humans have the capability to “swim against the current” of those old survival motivations that were/are hard-wired into our psyche. There is a phrase in evolutionary psychology called “reciprocal altruism.” It is in essence “tit-for-tat,” or “one hand washes the other, or “one good turn deserves another.” There is the view among evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists that reciprocal altruism may have been instrumental in enabling humans to survive as groups (not just as individuals), and may in fact be the source of morality among humans. It makes sense to me.

    I believe that when we die, consciousness ceases completely. We are aware of nothing. It is the same as before we were born. This notion of complete cessation of awareness doesn’t bother me. In fact it comforts me, because it makes me feel that, upon dying, I will have returned to that from whence I came: that great primordial mix from which all subsequent existence sprang, where my molecules, atoms, quarks, strings (whatever) will continue to exist for all eternity. One of my favorite bits of scripture is Ecclesiastes 1:7: “ All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again” [KJV]. After I die, I will be “back where I started.” I will be “home.” What about family and friends who have predeceased me? Will they have somehow “survived?” Will I be with them in “Heaven?” Sorry: I don’t believe in any such survival, or in Heaven (or Hell) for that matter. We will live on only in the hearts and minds of those we leave behind. (See the paragraph just below.)

    There is the very familiar expression from Genesis 3:19: “dust you are and to dust you will return.” It has long been my desire and intent that upon my death I be cremated, and that my ashes be scattered aloft, into the air, and upon the waters. I would like to think that my family and friends, when subsequent to my death they have occasion at eventide to look to the west at a gloriously beautiful sunset (caused by small dust particles suspended in the atmosphere), they will, with fondness and a smile, find comfort in thinking “Ah…there is a little bit of Roger.” 🙂

    Having said all of the above, let me emphasize that I fully and deeply recognize and appreciate the value and benefit of traditional, institutionalized religion. It brings hope to countless human beings. It brings comfort/solace. It brings strength and support to those in need, who suffer from what Shakespeare’s Hamlet called “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” (Although, also, I must say, it has too often, in its long history, brought conflict and suffering to many through misdirected and unrestrained zeal.) I have no desire, no aim, no agenda, no axe to grind, with regard to denigrating conventional religion. I do, however, have hopes that institutionalized religion will gradually make a transition toward a more symbolic, figurative interpretation of the Bible and of traditional dogma. Hopefully this can be done without diminishing the benefits referred to above – accruing from more traditional, old-fashioned notions – while still enabling the growth of churches, and participation therein by today’s every increasingly skeptical populace.


    JOHN WESLEY’s Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience.

    MY Quadrilaterals

    First, the Quadrilateral of my Disbelief: Sin, Guilt, Atonement, Salvation. I do not believe in nor subscribe to these foundational beliefs of traditional, institutionalized Christianity (nor in those expressed in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds). One would think that this fact would brand me as a heretic (which I am), but the United Methodist Church has not (yet) seen fit to kick me out.

    If one is privileged/enterprising/LUCKY enough to have adequate Food, Clothing, Shelter (for this trio, maybe read MONEY), and Health (these four constitute another Quadrilateral!), then one is capable (though not necessarily guaranteed) of successfully implementing and living by my PHILOSOPHICAL QUADRILATERAL, which consists of four imperatives: Be Aware, Relate, Contribute, and Enjoy. To be Aware entails that you be intellectually curious, alert to where you come from, where you are, and where you are heading. [Quote: “The unexamined life is not worth living” (attributed to Socrates)] To Relate entails that you react to your awareness, that you set yourself in context with the past and the present, plan for the future, and make connections with existence. To Contribute means to act upon your awareness and relatedness, optimally in a positive manner, trying to avoid a negative contribution. (See my earlier paragraph on “Glorifying God”). Finally, to Enjoy (which though listed last is by no means least) means just that. Enjoyment is enhanced by appreciation of the little things in life, and by anticipation of the same. Enjoy the ability to get out of bed in the morning, that morning cup of coffee. Enjoy sunshine, but also the sight, sound, and smell of rain (maybe even getting wet occasionally in it) . Appreciate, use, and indulge ALL of your senses. Enjoy your family, friends, and DOGS (maybe cats, too!). Remember, you only go around once in life. (At least, that’s my belief.)

    I recently read the novel “The Alchemist” by Paulo Coelho. It made me ponder what I said upon the occasion of my retirement from USF, when during my Departmental farewell party, I was asked what was I going to do with all that spare time during my retirement, I responded that I would endeavor to “seek the sacredness in the ordinary.” [Note: that expression is probably not original with me. It may have come from Joseph Campbell. I do know that the expression “Follow your bliss” is from him.]

    The gist of my pondering (about “The Alchemist”) is that I am an alchemist (at least, a mental alchemist). 🙂

    What do I mean by that?

    Well, an alchemist is one who endeavors to turn base metals into gold. I like to think that what I am endeavoring – and have endeavored – to do is not just to seek the sacred in the ordinary, but to turn the ordinary into the sacred. To me this means to view the ordinary, mundane things in life – often the things that we take most for granted – through the lens of sacredness (maybe sort of like rose-colored glasses? – smile). The ordinary is a part of creation (aka God), and as such qualifies as sacred. It is my view that when I die, ordinary me will be so transformed. What do I mean by that? It’s associated with my notion that after I die and am cremated, my ashes: molecules, atoms, quarks, strings . . . whatever . . . return to and join that primordial dust/stuff that was created at the “Beginning,” during the Big Bang. That’s about as close as one can get, and in the most integral form, I would think, to Creation . . . to “God,” and thus to the sacred. Recall my favorite Ecclesiastes quote [Eccl. 1:7] about going back to where one started, returning from whence one came. And, too, there is this quote: “Home is the sailor, home from the seas, and the hunter home from the hills.” – Robert Louis Stevenson, in his poem “Requiem.”

    I shared in Sunday School one morning my statement above about my being a mental alchemist, and about, upon my dying, my transformation from the ordinary into the sacred. One of my most simpatico friends then asked me to define sacred. This was difficult. I thought a moment and then I said to her: sacred means “God-like.” That’s not a bad definition. It resonates with all of what I have shared above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *